## Facts

- Nadia Drake alleged she has severe anxiety, PTSD, and panic attacks and uses a service dog.
- In July 2018, Drake visited the Talking Stick Casino and Resort, owned and operated by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.
- Drake alleged casino employees told her the service dog “had to go,” including while she attempted to retrieve bags to show service-dog credentials.
- Drake alleged the incident triggered a panic attack.
- Drake sued the Community asserting (1) disability discrimination under Title III of the ADA and (2) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress under state law.
- The Community initially did not respond; the clerk entered default.
- The Community moved to set aside default and to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on tribal sovereign immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether the entry of default should be set aside for “good cause” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).
2. Whether tribal sovereign immunity barred a private Title III ADA suit against a federally recognized tribe absent a clear congressional abrogation or an unequivocal tribal waiver.
3. Whether tribal sovereign immunity also barred state-law emotional-distress claims asserted against the tribe in federal court.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to set aside the clerk’s entry of default under Rule 55(c).
- The court granted the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held the Community was immune from suit on the ADA Title III claim because there was no clear congressional abrogation and no tribal waiver.
- The court held the Community was also immune from the state-law emotional-distress claims.
- The court dismissed the action with prejudice and denied other dismissal grounds (personal jurisdiction and service) as moot.

## Legal Principles

- A court may set aside an entry of default for “good cause,” considering (1) the defendant’s culpable conduct, (2) existence of a meritorious defense, and (3) prejudice to the plaintiff.
- Federally recognized tribes possess sovereign immunity from suit unless (1) the tribe unequivocally waives immunity or (2) Congress clearly and unequivocally abrogates it.
- General statutory language (e.g., “any person” operating a public accommodation) does not, without unmistakable reference to tribes, clearly abrogate tribal sovereign immunity.
- Tribal sovereign immunity bars state-law tort claims against a tribe absent an applicable waiver or abrogation and deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the default and dismissed all claims because the defendant tribe’s sovereign immunity was neither waived by the tribe nor clearly abrogated by Congress, preventing a private ADA Title III action and related state-law tort claims from proceeding in federal court.


Drake v. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty., 411 F. Supp. 3d 513 (D. Ariz. 2019)